"Gunning for" - positive or negative
Phil Carmody
I've just seen it in an antagonistic/aggressive context with the exact
opposite implication.
Can I call a vote?
"gunning for" - positive or negative?
Cheers,
Phil
Jonathan Jordan
"Phil Carmody" <thefatphi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2002.10.31....@yahoo.co.uk...
the British media). As in "Tory MPs are reported to be gunning for
Iain Duncan Smith" - they might be criticising his leadership and
plotting to replace him. (Is that the context you saw it in?).
Jonathan
Mike Barnes
Negative. Unless you feel antipathy towards the target.
--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England
Matti Lamprhey
CyberCypher
news:pan.2002.10.31....@yahoo.co.uk:
To me, it means that X is tracking down Y in order to shoot Y dead with
whatever gun X has chosen to go gunning for Y with. Always negative.
Another meaning is the metaphorical one of trying to "shoot somebody
down" by beating her in an election. I've never seen or heard it used
in the positive way you suggest.
To "gun" can mean to "race" as in "He gunned the engine", and that is
positive or negative depending upon context.
--
Franke: Speaker and teacher of Standard International English (SIE)
Jim McCulloch
Negative. I don't think I have ever heard the "support for" usage you
suggest.
--Jim McCulloch (US, Texas)
Jacqui
Both, depending on context.
Jac (UK/Oxford)
rzed
"Matti Lamprhey" <matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote in message
news:apreiq$46c9i$1...@ID-103223.news.dfncis.de...
I agree with Matti and the others who regard "gunning" as negative. A
possibly related term, "plug," could be used in either sense ( "He was
plugging every varmint that walked in the door," or "He was plugging
the candidacy of that varmint.")
--
rzed
Phil Carmody
OK, it seems there's a resounding negative response.
To be honest, I have most seen the term in the context of sport, where
teams are gunning for a gold medal or championship win or whatever.
It appears that once the fans get involved, and they both are gunning for
the title, I've been going astray and incorrectly interpreted the fans
gunning for the victory to be a purely positive thing of support.
No 'enemy' is required in this context, if the target is the medal, and so
I viewed the whole thing as not being negative.
And 'for' even sounds positive, contrasting with 'against', for example.
([2 Ne 7:25] For they who are not for me, are against me, saith our God.)
I'm sure that if I were in the armed forces, I'd want to be gunning for my
country rather than against it. Wouldn't you?
Bizarre - I wonder how many political news stories I've misinterpreted
over the years!
Can anyone trace the first use of the term - who was aiming what at whom?
Tehe verbing of a noun makes me think it's more likely to be a modern
term.
Phil
Donna Richoux
Well, you make that sound like it's a line from a play or a poem. I
think what you really hope to learn is the oldest known citation for the
phrase.
The Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang has, under
"gun" as a verb:
3. to seek out, usually with the intention of settling a grudge. --
constructed with for or (obs.) after. Now colloquial.
1878 at. Police Gaz. (June 1) 5: Gunning for a Lecherous Parson. 1882
in DA: The Senator from Kentucky... went gunning after the Senator from
Vermont... on account of some unguarded declarations he made. [snip
further citations]
> Tehe verbing of a noun makes me think it's more likely to be a modern
> term.
What? Verbing nouns and nouning verbs has been going on for centuries.
Which came first, a fish or to fish? A mine or to mine? A hunt or to
hunt? Etc, etc. People invent a thing to blork with and they call it a
blork. Or they name a think a blork and then call the act of using it,
"blorking." Please don't think this process was invented in our
lifetimes.
--
Best wishes -- Donna Richoux
Mike Lyle
Negative, all my life (Aus & UK).
With one exception, which could not have worked had it not been
exceptional. Gen. Wavell told shy young men not to worry, as a woman
out gunning does not despise a sitting duck.
Quack! Quack?
Mike.
CyberCypher
> On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 11:49:17 +0000, Jonathan Jordan wrote:
>
>>
>> "Phil Carmody" <thefatphi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2002.10.31....@yahoo.co.uk...
>>> To me (UK/London) and my girlfriend (US/Ne) "gunning for" means
>> support.
>>> I've just seen it in an antagonistic/aggressive context with the
>> exact
>>> opposite implication.
>>>
>>> Can I call a vote?
>>> "gunning for" - positive or negative?
>>>
>> Negative (UK/Sheffield, although I think the usage is widespread
>> in the British media). As in "Tory MPs are reported to be
>> gunning for Iain Duncan Smith" - they might be criticising his
>> leadership and plotting to replace him. (Is that the context you
>> saw it in?).
>
> OK, it seems there's a resounding negative response.
>
> To be honest, I have most seen the term in the context of sport,
> where teams are gunning for a gold medal or championship win or
> whatever. It appears that once the fans get involved, and they
> both are gunning for the title, I've been going astray
Here's a point where you go astray. The fans do not go gunning for the
gold medal or the championship; only the contender does. But in this
case, it means "to win" and not "to support".
> and
> incorrectly interpreted the fans gunning for the victory to be a
> purely positive thing of support. No 'enemy' is required in this
> context, if the target is the medal,
When it's used in its metaphorical hunting sense of "out to bag a gold
medal (or a deer)", there is no need for an enemy; it means "out to
get" without the implication of settling a grudge but of winning or
succeeding.
> and so I viewed the whole thing as not being negative.
> And 'for' even sounds positive, contrasting with 'against', for
> example. ([2 Ne 7:25] For they who are not for me, are against me,
> saith our God.)
"for" in this sense has always been positive.
> I'm sure that if I were in the armed forces, I'd want to be
> gunning for my country rather than against it. Wouldn't you?
No, that doesn't sound right to me. Only combatants "go gunning" for
anything, and that's usually the enemy.
> Bizarre - I wonder how many political news stories I've
> misinterpreted over the years!
>
> Can anyone trace the first use of the term - who was aiming what
> at whom? Tehe verbing of a noun makes me think it's more likely to
> be a modern term.
English is a "modern language" that has been, as Donna pointed out,
verbing nouns since birth. It's part of the language, not a 20th-
century invention. Check out the OED at your local library.
2. intr[ansitivie verb]. To shoot with a gun; hence, to make war. to
gun for: to shoot for, to go in search of with a gun; also, to go after
or in search of; to seek to attack, harm, or destroy (someone). Phrase
to go gunning, in which the participial form represents historically a-
gunning (see gunning vbl. n. and -ing2). Chiefly U.S.
a1622 Sir R. Hawkins Observ. §10 (1622) 19 Which is a bad custome
received and vsed of many ignorant persons presently to gun at all
whatsoever they discover, before they speake with them.
1622 Drayton Poly-olb. xxiii. (1748) 355 Forc’d by some yelping cute to
give the greyhounds view, Which are at length let slip when gunning out
they go.
1767 N. Eng. Hist. & Gen. Register (1860) XIV. 47 All Persons coming to
gun on said Island after Game.
1779 D. Gookin Ibid. (1862) XVI. 29 Our men went out this day gunning,
saw deer and wild Turkey, killed none.
1839 Marryat Diary Amer. Ser. i. II. 102, I was hardly twelve years
old, and had never been allowed to go out gunning.
1865 U. S. Grant in Century Mag. (1889) Nov. 146/2 The whole captures
since the army started out gunning, will amount to not less than twelve
thousand men and probably fifty pieces of artillery.
1888 Century Mag. Mar. 780/1 The guards..used..to gun for prisoners’
heads..after the fashion of boys after squirrels.
1893 W. K. Post Harvard Stories 188 That bull Mick Shreedy is gunning
for me just at present.
1903 N.Y. Times 29 Sept. 1 Others talked of mysterious influences that
had been ‘gunning’ for financiers of prominence.
1922 Daily Mail 5 Dec. 9 Observing that the Company’s statement is not
a denial of the assertion that it is ‘gunning’ for the Mesopotamian
oilfields claimed by the heirs of Abdul Hamid.
1930 ‘E. Queen’ French Powder Mystery xix. 171 Mr. Trask has been
gunning for Bernice [with a view to marriage] for over a year.
1936 Wodehouse Laughing Gas xviii. 198 Nice little bit of luck, finding
her like that... Matter of fact, I wasn’t gunning for her at all,
really. I came to get that notebook.
1950 G. Greene Third Man iii. 31 I’m gunning..for Colonel Callaghan.
1955 Times 16 June 12/2 You found when you came back from Oslo that for
other reasons the Communist Party was ‘gunning’ for Mr. Frankel?
1958 Observer 10 Aug. 3/2 Last week American commentators were gunning
for Mr. Dulles (‘too busy, too tired, too discouraged, too stale,’ said
Walter Lippmann..).
1960 C. Day Lewis Buried Day ix. 204, I felt that ‘They’ were gunning
for me again.
John Dean
This is my rifle
This is my gun
This is for fighting
This is for fun
--
John Dean
Oxford
De-frag to reply
Jerry
"John Dean" <john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote in message
news:apsjm8$18d$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> This is my rifle
> This is my gun
> This is for fighting
> This is for fun
I admit going on a whoopee-shoot with an M60 machine gun is fun, as is
blowing the crap out of old cars with a 105 mm gun howitzer, but in general
your distinction doesn't hold true.
Guns come with and without rifling and in a lot of sizes. Recoilless rifles
notwithstanding, rifles are a personal weapon in the long-arm category.
Inevitably, rifles have rifled barrels.
Robert Bannister
A bit like 'barracking' which can mean critical rowdiness, but, at least
in Australia, means to express approval.
--
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Mozilla/4.77C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; U; PPC) [Netscape]">
<title>sig file</title>
</head>
<body>
<br>Rob Bannister
</body>
</html>
Phil Carmody
[SNIP - the guts - a different follow-up will follow when there's more
research this end - I've found a fair few opinions of positive versions]
>> Tehe verbing of a noun makes me think it's more likely to be a modern
>> term.
>
> What? Verbing nouns and nouning verbs has been going on for centuries.
> Which came first, a fish or to fish? A mine or to mine? A hunt or to
> hunt? Etc, etc. People invent a thing to blork with and they call it a
> blork. Or they name a think a blork and then call the act of using it,
> "blorking." Please don't think this process was invented in our
> lifetimes.
Yes, you're right. I just get the feeling that there's been an explosion
of such after-the-coinage changes of part of speech recently. Certainly
the when the expression is coined, it's easy to imagine not just nouns
and verbs but adjectives and adverbs accompanying it. The quotes indicate
that 'gun' does fall into this older category, I stand corrected.
More later,
Phil
Evan Kirshenbaum
> On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 20:14:05 +0100, Donna Richoux wrote:
> [SNIP - the guts - a different follow-up will follow when there's more
> research this end - I've found a fair few opinions of positive versions]
>
> >> Tehe verbing of a noun makes me think it's more likely to be a modern
> >> term.
> >
> > What? Verbing nouns and nouning verbs has been going on for
> > centuries. Which came first, a fish or to fish?
Hard to say. OED has the noun from ca. 825 and the verb from
ca. 888.
> > A mine or to mine?
Both early 14th century.
> > A hunt or to hunt?
In the modern sense, the verb (ca. 1000 vs. ca. 1375). But there was
an older noun sense of "hunter" that dates back to ca. 1000.
> > Etc, etc. People invent a thing to blork with and they call it a
> > blork. Or they name a think a blork and then call the act of using
> > it, "blorking." Please don't think this process was invented in
> > our lifetimes.
>
> Yes, you're right. I just get the feeling that there's been an
> explosion of such after-the-coinage changes of part of speech
> recently.
When we discussed this this back in 1998, I did a bit of research and
came to this conclusion:
So it looks as though this was reasonably productive through the
early seventeenth centuries and then it appears to have become
less common, resurfacing in the late 19th, perhaps in America.
It's certainly productive here now.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Those who would give up essential
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Liberty, to purchase a little
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |temporary Safety, deserve neither
|Liberty nor Safety.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | Benjamin Franklin
(650)857-7572
Lardy Girl
>>> Can I call a vote?
>>> "gunning for" - positive or negative?
[Time passes]
> OK, it seems there's a resounding negative response.
I found this eye-opening, as I've only ever heard the phrase in the
positive sense - or only recognised it as such!
Thank you for the historical context. For a usage perspective, I've
conducted an informal survey on the subject of 'gunning for [group or
person]'. Given the comments in this thread, I'd'nt've thought the
responses I've received to my survey thus far would have been so much in
line with my own experience of the usage of the phrase. All responses
have been summarised below, both those in agreement with my usage and
those contrary thereto.
Finn - technical writer, (IE) linguistic master's degree:
Guess: 'cheering for', as 'for' suggests support, as in 'all for one
and one for all'
Brit - reference librarian, literary master's degree:
'rooting for'
German - translator:
Guess: 'rooting for'
Brit - linguist, fellow and director of studies in Classics (Cantab.):
'rooting for'
Swedish-speaking Finn - (IE) linguistics and literature lecturer:
Guess: 'defend' or 'support' a person, promote a cause
A transgenerational family of three USAns -
university student, comp. sci. - 'supporting', 'rooting for', possibly
heard to describe a person hired to work [his gun] for someone else;
the 'to strive to obtain something' or 'to get someone' usage might
ring a bell
military retiree - 'seeking to defeat', as with one businessman seeking
advantage over another
farmer and homemaker - 'try to get someone' or 'seeking an item of
interest to multiple parties', also heard in gangster context 'rub out'
=====
Comments respondents offered as to possible origin:
'there's probably some archaic "I'm a hired gun for", but I doubt I'd take
it like that'
'Could it be related to "Gunning one's engine"?'
--
A n n a S h e f l -- Abandon 'safety' to reply
- "Never eat more than you can lift." --Miss Piggy -
alt.anagrams FAQ: http://asdf.org/~anna/grams/
Anna's News Clippings archive and more: http://theanna.org/
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
[...]
> I'd'nt've thought <------- !!!
^^^^^^^^^
Some people can be *sooo* cruel.
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
R J Valentine
} Lardy Girl (Anna) wrote:
}
} [...]
}
}> I'd'nt've thought <------- !!!
} ^^^^^^^^^
} Some people can be *sooo* cruel.
Yeah, if there were any justice on the newsgroup, it'd've been
"I'dn't've", eh.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net>
Lars Eighner
<xD%w9.20335$T_.4...@iad-read.news.verio.net>,
the lovely and talented Lardy Girl
broadcast on alt.usage.english:
> Thank you for the historical context. For a usage perspective, I've
> conducted an informal survey on the subject of 'gunning for [group or
> person]'. Given the comments in this thread, I'd'nt've thought the
> responses I've received to my survey thus far would have been so much in
> line with my own experience of the usage of the phrase. All responses
> have been summarised below, both those in agreement with my usage and
> those contrary thereto.
Texas person - who thinks he has an ear for this sort of
thing: almost always in gunning for a position of some
sort. "He's gunning for Joe's job." This is positive, I
suppose, to those who find back-stabby ambition a good
character trait.
--
Lars Eighner -finger for geek code- eig...@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
The most beautiful things are those that madness prompts and reason writes.
--Andre Gide
Mike Lyle
Well, thank God not everybody recognises that unlikable little rhyme!
(BTW, does anybody still say "recoilless rifle"?)
Mike.
Lardy Girl
> On Sun, 03 Nov 2002 02:54:22 GMT "Reinhold (Rey) Aman" <am...@sonic.net> wrote:
> } Lardy Girl (Anna) wrote:
> }
> }> I'd'nt've thought <------- !!!
> } ^^^^^^^^^
> } Some people can be *sooo* cruel.
> Yeah, if there were any justice on the newsgroup, it'd've been
> "I'dn't've", eh.
I let you off easy. Single-malt posts at 4:00 am are supposed to
contain many more typos than that.
I never thought I would cringe on realising I hadn't included a
fourth apostrophe in a word (or, rather, in a 'word').
Peter Moylan
> Lardy Girl (Anna) wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> I'd'nt've thought <------- !!!
> ^^^^^^^^^
> Some people can be *sooo* cruel.
You'd'nt've been worried by this if you'd grown up with it.
(Confession: I almost spelt this as you'dn't've, which
would of course have been completely wrong.)
--
Peter Moylan pe...@ee.newcastle.edu.au
http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au
Aaron J. Dinkin
> You'd'nt've been worried by this if you'd grown up with it.
>
> (Confession: I almost spelt this as you'dn't've, which
> would of course have been completely wrong.)
Eh? Why would it've been?
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Brian Wickham
<an...@ledsafetyhazard.net> wrote:
snip
>. All responses
>have been summarised below, both those in agreement with my usage and
>those contrary thereto.
>
>
>Finn - technical writer, (IE) linguistic master's degree:
> Guess: 'cheering for', as 'for' suggests support, as in 'all for one
>and one for all'
>
>Brit - reference librarian, literary master's degree:
> 'rooting for'
>
>German - translator:
> Guess: 'rooting for'
>
>Brit - linguist, fellow and director of studies in Classics (Cantab.):
> 'rooting for'
>
>Swedish-speaking Finn - (IE) linguistics and literature lecturer:
> Guess: 'defend' or 'support' a person, promote a cause
>
>A transgenerational family of three USAns -
> university student, comp. sci. - 'supporting', 'rooting for', possibly
> heard to describe a person hired to work [his gun] for someone else;
> the 'to strive to obtain something' or 'to get someone' usage might
> ring a bell
> military retiree - 'seeking to defeat', as with one businessman seeking
> advantage over another
> farmer and homemaker - 'try to get someone' or 'seeking an item of
> interest to multiple parties', also heard in gangster context 'rub out'
>
>=====
Well it just goes to show you the value of an "intelligent guess"!
Usage is everything and the military retiree plus the farmer/homemaker
trump all the rest.
If the police are "gunning for you" it means they are grim, determined
and will shoot-to-kill on sight. If gangsters are "gunning for you"
then there is a contract on your life.
If someone is "gunning for your job" you may want to look to your
efficiency rating and how well you are liked by your bosses because
someone is trying to "blow you out of the water" and take your place.
Also, someone is "gunning for you" if they have taken a strong
disliking (or is it dislike?) to you and they are looking for any way
possible to humiliate you. They have made it their role in life to
"shoot you down" or "bring you down a peg or two". They have become
your nemesis.
A more or less neutral use would be if someone were "gunning for" a
prize or position that is open for the taking. What it means in that
context is "having one's sights trained on the target." Even in this
case it is a reference to being almost ruthless in the pursuit. There
is an undercurrrent of "I already consider it mine, so if you get in
my way I'll crush you." An example would be a school president
election where, of three candidates, two rely on their popularity
among friends and the third has posters, banners and an ally at the
school newspaper. The third one is serious and is "gunning for the
job."
"Gunning" may be used in other phrases with different meanings, as
quoted earlier in this string, but "gunning for..." has only the
meaning of "armed (literally or metaphorically), and out to best
someone or take something". It can literally be taken as, "If he
finds you, you're dead!" or, "He's got a gun and he's asking for you
all over town!"
An ironic use would be:
If you were busy on your cell phone and stepped into an open manhole,
a friend visiting your hospital bed might console, "Someone's gunning
for you" or alternately, "They're out to get you" to lightly express
the idea that you are not, by nature, a hard-luck kind of person and
it isn't all your fault. What is being said here is: "We both know
you did something really stupid but I'll make a joke of it by implying
that other forces directed you to that manhole, while making sure it
would be uncovered." BTW, this ironic use qualifies as a cliche
almost as worn out as "We have to stop meeting like this."
Maybe those persons who thought it meant "to be in one's corner" have
heard the above usage and misinterpreted it to mean "Chin up, I'm on
your side." The fact that it it usually delivered with a smile might
reinforce that erroneous impression.
I realize that on the internet all opinions are of equal weight so
even though I know what I'm talking about you have no real way of
judging that. But I do represent more than 50 years of experience
using and hearing the phrase. In that time I have never heard it used
to express the idea of working on behalf of someone. In everyday life
when someone warns, "They're gunning for you." it means, unequivocally
that you have been targeted for removal. In a corporation the same
thought can be expressed as "They're building a file on you." Either
way the message is always, "Watch your step!"
Brian Wickham
NYC
Peter Moylan
That's a tough question. In fact, now that I look at it again I
can't decide between the two possibilities.
An interesting thing about that word is that the entire "dnt"
cluster is pronounced without releasing the tongue.
--
Peter Moylan pe...@ee.newcastle.edu.au
See http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au for OS/2 information and software
Aaron J. Dinkin
> Aaron J. Dinkin <a...@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
>>On 4 Nov 2002 01:34:53 GMT, Peter Moylan <pe...@PJM2.newcastle.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>>> You'd'nt've been worried by this if you'd grown up with it.
>>>
>>> (Confession: I almost spelt this as you'dn't've, which
>>> would of course have been completely wrong.)
>>
>>Eh? Why would it've been?
>
> That's a tough question. In fact, now that I look at it again I
> can't decide between the two possibilities.
I support "you'dn't've", because the traditional rule is to place the
apostrophe to make up for the missing <o> in "not".